Is it a sin to watch certain TV shows?

[James22]

I think you’re exactly right James22 – sex sells. Plain and simple. It always has and it always will. Though I’m not sure that network TV is selling sex for the purposes of arousal (though it’s certainly a side effect). Networks are there to make a buck – plain and simple.

Whether or not this is the explicit overt intention, I was speculating also whether the titilation and excitement derived by viewers in watching shows with sexual content and situations isn’t in itself a mild form of sexual arousal - and therefore to be avoided as a form of lust. In other words, its not just a side effect. It is the effect.

Just a thought I was trying to articulate, not sure it works.

If network TV (cable TV is a separate beast altogether) was all about good “wholesome” content there wouldn’t be anymore network TV. Television, books, etc. are forms of entertainment. If the shows that we were watching were about good Catholic boys and girls living their lives you know what they would be – BORING. No one would watch them. The entire idea of having any antagonistic relationship in a story necessitates SIN. In order for there to be a “good guy” there has to be a “bad guy”.

And that is the sad sickness of our current society. The idea that a show can’t be entertaining, or funny, or dramatic, without people sleeping together is pathetic. If anything, it betrays an appalling lack of creativity and originality, on the part of both producer and viewer, that we need to rely on dirty jokes and glamorized scandal in order to be entertained. It doesn’t have to be Leave it to Beaver… there are several universes of difference between that show and Gossip Girl.

Of course there’s sin, which creates conflict. But once again this whole discussion revolving around the question of “crossing the line” into sin is misguided.

Am I sinning by being entertained by others… NO.

That statement, while true in itself and in a vacuum, begs a few questions. Porn is a form of entertainment. Clearly, that’s sin. Watching gladiators kill each other in the Roman Colosseum was for entertainment. It was sin to enjoy that too.

OBVIOUSLY, those are extreme examples, and aren’t quite what we are discussing here. (Although its not hard to see how some of even network TV can border on a kind of porn.) I use them merely to illustrate the idea that it isn’t so cut and dried to just say “It’s ok, I’m just being entertained, I’m not the one sinning.”

 

[Lee_M]

I actually tend to agree with this point, but I’ve got to ask – if these products & services shouldn’t be advertised during the daytime hours, when or where should they be advertised?

chewie

I would prefer that they didn’t advertise them at all on television. There are laws against advertising cigarettes on television. They shouldn’t be advertising this type of smut of television.

 

[James22]

I would prefer that they didn’t advertise them at all on television. There are laws against advertising cigarettes on television. They shouldn’t be advertising this type of smut of television.

I might request that products for sexual performance/enhancement, etc., or worse, birth control, not be advertised on tv at all. That is a private matter, and should be between a patient and doctor.

 

[iuchewie]

I might request that products for sexual performance/enhancement, etc., or worse, birth control, not be advertised on tv at all. That is a private matter, and should be between a patient and doctor.

I think we’re delving into an issue here that is beyond the scope of the original post – I’d love to discuss it further in another topic.

 

[edwest2]

I invite everyone to read this article:

zenit.org/article-22552?l=english

God bless,
Ed

 

[James22]

I think we’re delving into an issue here that is beyond the scope of the original post – I’d love to discuss it further in another topic.

Probably true. It is another example, however, of how sexualized television programming has become. You can’t even escape from it during the commercial break.

 

[iuchewie]

And that is the sad sickness of our current society. The idea that a show can’t be entertaining, or funny, or dramatic, without people sleeping together is pathetic. If anything, it betrays an appalling lack of creativity and originality, on the part of both producer and viewer, that we need to rely on dirty jokes and glamorized scandal in order to be entertained. It doesn’t have to be Leave it to Beaver… there are several universes of difference between that show and Gossip Girl.

Couple of different things going on here.

(And before I answer this I want to let everyone know that I’m not intending to be argumentative – I really to believe that these discussion forums are important but I’d hate for us to fall into a trap where we’re just a bunch of Catholics “preaching to the choir” and all having the same opinion. I’m here to offer another angle.)

It seems that this particular topic is being broken into a couple of different sub-threads. It seems that sexual shows are being singled out as “sinful”. What about violent shows? Shows that have off-color humor? In your example Eddie Haskel was the “sinner”. He was the bad boy in the neighborhood. Sure he wasn’t having sex, but he was always doing things that Ward had to teach the Beaver NOT to do.

Perhaps this is getting to a bigger issue. Sin has always been around but what we consider “sinful” has changed over the year. Wilma & Fred Flintstone were the first couple to be shown in bed together. It’s not like “bedroom sin” started there in Bedrock.

chewie

 

[James22]

It seems that this particular topic is being broken into a couple of different sub-threads. It seems that sexual shows are being singled out as “sinful”. What about violent shows? Shows that have off-color humor? In your example Eddie Haskel was the “sinner”. He was the bad boy in the neighborhood. Sure he wasn’t having sex, but he was always doing things that Ward had to teach the Beaver NOT to do.

Perhaps this is getting to a bigger issue. Sin has always been around but what we consider “sinful” has changed over the year. Wilma & Fred Flintstone were the first couple to be shown in bed together. It’s not like “bedroom sin” started there in Bedrock.

First - edwest, terrific article.

Next - chewie, I thoroughly agree that on this forum and elsewhere, sexual sin is the one that the discussion focuses around. And much the same can be said for violence, and we shouldn’t neglect that our desensitization to violence is the same as to sexually immorality.

I hope I don’t go to far though, when I suggest that the sexuality part actually is a bigger deal. The reality is that, among all groups of people but among young people especially, the likelihood of watching violent or scary movies inducing one to have a more lenient view of murder is MUCH less than the likelihood that watching beautiful people shack together is going to induce one to have a more lenient view of all kinds of behavior that we Catholics say is contrary to our dignity and God’s plan for us: pre- and extra-marital sex, contraception, abortion, the whole thing.

And please don’t respond by saying that I’m saying someone is just going to go hook up randomnly with a stranger because they watched sex and the city once. The whole point is that we become numb and susceptible over time.

Fred and Wilma also weren’t glamorizing anything innappropriate, let alone “sin.” The problem today is that through television we literally revel in the rampant sexual escapades of beautiful people. That’s a whole different story than saying, “well, tv has always depicted sin.” I feel like you’re trying to deny that media can have a negative influence on people, and the way we live, which is literally undeniable in the face of mounting sociological evidence.

 

[James22]

Sin has always been around but what we consider “sinful” has changed over the year.

And sorry to keep going, but I just caught this.

What is considers “sinful” has never changed. Our acceptance and tolerance of sin is the only thing that has changed. It has been since God become flesh in Christ the Church’s understanding that sex is the sacred and mutual gift of self between a husband and wife. The essence of this problem isn’t that sex outside that relationship is simply portrayed on tv - it happens in the Bible, of course - it is HOW it is portrayed. King David’s bed was wet with tears when he realized his error in committing adultery with Bethsheba. Feel free to compare that to the presentation of sex in any prime time network show. If all you had to go by on understanding sex was our media, you’d think that the path to happiness was through lots of casual, meaningless sex. Which is exactly the problem.

 

[iuchewie]

Fred and Wilma also weren’t glamorizing anything innappropriate, let alone “sin.” The problem today is that through television we literally revel in the rampant sexual escapades of beautiful people. That’s a whole different story than saying, “well, tv has always depicted sin.” I feel like you’re trying to deny that media can have a negative influence on people, and the way we live, which is literally undeniable in the face of mounting sociological evidence.

Absolutely no argument there… media does in fact have negative influences in people’s lives and denying it would be ignorant.

I guess MY point is that I don’t view it as a sin to “revel in the rampant sexual escapades of beautiful people”. Perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree (though I think we’re kind of saying the same thing but from two vastly different viewpoints)

Again, I go back to the original question of the thread – Is it a sin to watch certain TV shows? For me personally, the answer is no.

In any story, there is a protagonist and an antagonist. There’s sin throughout the Bible left and right. Allow me to use a silly example if I may:

I watch Sex and the City (or Grey’s, or Lost, or Harry Potter, or George Carlin’s standup act, etc) and get enjoyment out of it.

I read the story of Adam and Eve and get enjoyment out of it.

I think you can see where I’m going here. In both scenarios, there is sin involved. I doubt very seriously that anyone would tell me that it’s a SIN to enjoy reading the story of Adam & Eve.

I recognize that it’s a silly (and very simple) example but I think it illustrates my point.

chewie

 

[James22]

Absolutely no argument there… media does in fact have negative influences in people’s lives and denying it would be ignorant.

I guess MY point is that I don’t view it as a sin to “revel in the rampant sexual escapades of beautiful people”. Perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree (though I think we’re kind of saying the same thing but from two vastly different viewpoints)

Again, I go back to the original question of the thread – Is it a sin to watch certain TV shows? For me personally, the answer is no.

In any story, there is a protagonist and an antagonist. There’s sin throughout the Bible left and right. Allow me to use a silly example if I may:

I watch Sex and the City (or Grey’s, or Lost, or Harry Potter, or George Carlin’s standup act, etc) and get enjoyment out of it.

I read the story of Adam and Eve and get enjoyment out of it.

I think you can see where I’m going here. In both scenarios, there is sin involved. I doubt very seriously that anyone would tell me that it’s a SIN to enjoy reading the story of Adam & Eve.

I recognize that it’s a silly (and very simple) example but I think it illustrates my point.

chewie

I think the mistake here is in saying that “entertainment” is just some kind of neutral act untouched by morality, likewise with “enjoyment.” See my comments on the story of David.
We learn things through media of all types: what we watch, listen to, and read. The things we “enjoy” form the basis of our experience, which is the basis for our worldview. Not all “enjoyment experiences” are created equal. When you choose to passively sit back and “enjoy” something that purportes a worldview contrary to the Christian faith, you give you tacit approval - even to yourself - of attitudes and actions which are not compatible with a life lived in faith.

The story of Adam and Eve is about the fall of humanity through sin. Sex and the City is basically about the opposite - the “liberation” or whatever, of women and humanity through sin. The difference in the experience gained from watching one and reading the other couldn’t be starker.

 

[James22]

I guess MY point is that I don’t view it as a sin to “revel in the rampant sexual escapades of beautiful people”.

This might be the very point. To “enjoy” in that sense is completely different from the enjoyment of reading the bible. Completely different. I don’t even know where to start with that one.

I’ll start here: If one “enjoyed” watching Meredith shack with Mcdreamy, then one in a very real sense approved of and didn’t find fault with what they were doing. Which means that one’s ability to recognize sin for what it is - and be rightly repulsed by it when it is presently as though favorable - has been severely impaired. Which is a very big deal.

 

[Joe_5859]

In any story, there is a protagonist and an antagonist. There’s sin throughout the Bible left and right. Allow me to use a silly example if I may:

I watch Sex and the City (or Grey’s, or Lost, or Harry Potter, or George Carlin’s standup act, etc) and get enjoyment out of it.

I read the story of Adam and Eve and get enjoyment out of it.

I think you can see where I’m going here. In both scenarios, there is sin involved. I doubt very seriously that anyone would tell me that it’s a SIN to enjoy reading the story of Adam & Eve.

I recognize that it’s a silly (and very simple) example but I think it illustrates my point.

I know this is just a “silly” example, but I think it illustrates the problem with comparing the Bible with modern media. We shouldn’t approach the Bible as we would an episode of Sex and the City. We don’t primarily read the Bible to get enjoyment out of it (which is not to say that it isn’t enjoyable to read).

The Bible = inerrant word of God
Sex and the City = not so much

If we approach them the same way, we’re either taking TV shows way too seriously, or not taking the Bible seriously enough.

 

[James22]

To me, this is the same issue, from a slightly different angle:

“Eating disorders affect more than 7 million American girls and women, and up to 70 million people worldwide. Ninety-one percent of women recently surveyed on a college campus reported dieting; 22 percent of them dieted “always” or “often.” In 1995, 34 percent of high school-age girls in the United States thought they were over-weight. Today, 90 percent do. Over half the females between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five would prefer to be run over by a truck than be fat, and two-thirds surveyed would rather be mean or stupid. The single group of teenagers most likely to consider or attempt suicide is girls who worry they are overweight. A survey of American parents found that one in ten would abort a child if they found out that she had a genetic tendency to be fat.”

From a book called Perfect Girls, Starving daughters: On the frightening new normalcy of hating your body, by a woman named Courtney Martin.

This is undeniably due to the influence of the media - and, I believe as part of this, due to some of these same television programs we are talking about. And this is why the sexuality stuff is so important, because it inherently relates - when we come look at our bodies as objects for physical pleasure, as young girls certainly come to do by watching these sex-rampant shows, it become more imperative to measure up to the standard, because what is a woman worth if she isn’t sexually desirable? Distort the way we look at sex, and the way we look at our bodies becomes distorted. This is especially harmful for women, as evidenced above.

Yes, I do blame Sex and the City for this. Not just that one show, but all other shows like it, and all the other magazines and movies that display the same values.

 

[iuchewie]

We learn things through media of all types: what we watch, listen to, and read. The things we “enjoy” form the basis of our experience, which is the basis for our worldview. Not all “enjoyment experiences” are created equal. When you choose to passively sit back and “enjoy” something that purportes a worldview contrary to the Christian faith, you give you tacit approval - even to yourself - of attitudes and actions which are not compatible with a life lived in faith.

The story of Adam and Eve is about the fall of humanity through sin. Sex and the City is basically about the opposite - the “liberation” or whatever, of women and humanity through sin. The difference in the experience gained from watching one and reading the other couldn’t be starker.

Ah HAA!!! Here’s where we disagree (which I don’t think is a bad thing). Personally I don’t see me enjoying something to be the same thing as giving my approval. I can **enjoy **watching a sitcom on TV or a drama in the theater without **approving **of what the characters are doing on screen.

If I’m reading the story of Adam & Eve from a non-theological perspective (IE reading it just for the story not taking away any "teaching from it) then I’m enjoying the story itself. Jesus taught ALL the time in parables but they were stories as well. If you for whatever reason like the story but missed the message does that somehow change whether it’s a sin to enjoy the story?

If we want to say that what has become socially acceptable has changed over time in a negative way that’s fine. But let’s not confuse that with saying that I’m a sinner because I laughed at something off color or was enthralled by a war movie. I happen to love the Star Wars movies. I’m entertained by them but that doesn’t mean that I’m giving my approval of Darth Vader’s actions by enjoying the movie.

chewie

 

[James22]

If I’m reading the story of Adam & Eve from a non-theological perspective (IE reading it just for the story not taking away any "teaching from it) then I’m enjoying the story itself. Jesus taught ALL the time in parables but they were stories as well. If you for whatever reason like the story but missed the message does that somehow change whether it’s a sin to enjoy the story?

I admit it might take it too far to say any time you enjoy watching something that involves sin, its giving approval. (I also basically grew up on Star Wars.) That would rule out a heck of a lot of quality literature, etc.

I do think, however, that there is no such thing as reading something “purely” for enjoyment, without taking anything away. If anything, your citing Jesus’ parables proves my point. That’s why he taught that way. Human beings are incredibly complex, and we are constantly internalizing and processing the things which happen in the world around us.

To the point, I think there are some things which you cannot watch from a purely detached, “I’m just in a state of untouched enjoyment,” because in whatever case it is, there is “something” you are enjoying. Like I said before, if you enjoy reading the story of Adam and Eve, that “something” is about the downfall of humanity through disobeying God’s will. If you enjoy Sex and the City, that “something” is situations involving casual promiscuous sex portrayed favorably. Different.

I enjoyed Saving Private Ryan. And I think there is nothing wrong with that - I think it dramatically and accurately portrayed how horrible war is. That is entirely different from enjoying GTA4, which glamorizes and basically endorses meaningless violence.

In short, you just can’t separate the “enjoyment” from the “thing enjoyed.”

 

[James22]

Ah HAA!!! Here’s where we disagree (which I don’t think is a bad thing). Personally I don’t see me enjoying something to be the same thing as giving my approval. I can **enjoy **watching a sitcom on TV or a drama in the theater without **approving **of what the characters are doing on screen.

If I’m reading the story of Adam & Eve from a non-theological perspective (IE reading it just for the story not taking away any "teaching from it) then I’m enjoying the story itself. Jesus taught ALL the time in parables but they were stories as well. If you for whatever reason like the story but missed the message does that somehow change whether it’s a sin to enjoy the story?

If we want to say that what has become socially acceptable has changed over time in a negative way that’s fine. But let’s not confuse that with saying that I’m a sinner because I laughed at something off color or was enthralled by a war movie. I happen to love the Star Wars movies. I’m entertained by them but that doesn’t mean that I’m giving my approval of Darth Vader’s actions by enjoying the movie.

chewie

Plus, in the Bible, every time sin is portrayed, it is as a betrayal of God deserving of hell, unless we are saved through grace and repentence.

Grey’s Anatomy - not so much.

 

[iuchewie]

I enjoyed Saving Private Ryan. And I think there is nothing wrong with that - I think it dramatically and accurately portrayed how horrible war is. That is entirely different from enjoying GTA4, which glamorizes and basically endorses meaningless violence.

In short, you just can’t separate the “enjoyment” from the “thing enjoyed.”

We’re getting WAY off topic here. I think we’ve come to a point where we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

There are basically two ways to watch Saving Private Ryan. As a history lesson or as a violent war/action movie. If you’re of a certain age you’re probably watching it from the history perspective for the piece of cinema mastery that it is – an incredible depiction of the atrocities that happened during that World War. However, you MAY be watching it from the non-historical “this is a good story about a band of brothers” perspective. I don’t think it changes whether it’s a sin to watch it based on your perspective. If you’re watching it from the non-historical perspective then it glamorizes and endorses violence just as much as the GTA games.

To go completely off topic (and perhaps we’re to a point where we should start a new thread or take this to PMs) – have you ever played the GTA games?

chewie

 

[James22]

We’re getting WAY off topic here. I think we’ve come to a point where we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

There are basically two ways to watch Saving Private Ryan. As a history lesson or as a violent war/action movie. If you’re of a certain age you’re probably watching it from the history perspective for the piece of cinema mastery that it is – an incredible depiction of the atrocities that happened during that World War. However, you MAY be watching it from the non-historical “this is a good story about a band of brothers” perspective. I don’t think it changes whether it’s a sin to watch it based on your perspective. If you’re watching it from the non-historical perspective then it glamorizes and endorses violence just as much as the GTA games.

To go completely off topic (and perhaps we’re to a point where we should start a new thread or take this to PMs) – have you ever played the GTA games?

chewie

I kind of think this is the topic: whether or not we can morally watch grotesque displays of violence or gratuitous sexually charged entertainment, and how our attitude affects it. I think the examples are what muddies and distracts from that, so I’ll stay away from it.

And I think that my point that “being entertained” can’t be separated from the values inherent in the entertainment. How and what sort of pleasure we derive changes with the content, and with our stance towards it, you are absolutely correct. I can be “entertained” by watching sex and the city, if I have someone there with me to listen to my rant about everything that is wrong with it. That is a different kind of entertainment altogether than thinking it oh-so-funny when Samantha finds another stranger to be her sex toy.

And yes, I played GTA 2 a while ago (several years ago), and I do remember breaking things, stealing cars, causing accidents, shooting at cops, and killing pedestrians. I later watched a friend play GTA3, at a part where (I apologize if this is graphic, but the illustration serves) as he had sex with a prostitute, then didn’t pay her. She then followed him, so he had his character beat her to death. Please, PLEASE, do not try to defend that as mindless and morally neutral entertainment.

 

[edwest2]

As a professional writer, I can tell you that it is a fact: the reader is influenced by what is written. There is no need to split hairs here.

Every scene in a movie or TV show is planned. A director picks the angles, there’s a set designer, clothing is picked out. But what the public often does not hear about is the writer and/or producer arguing, that’s right, arguing, to show more skin. There are standards that TV producers and filmmakers have to follow. When they want to show more of a body part, they have to argue for it. Actresses may get tossed for consideration from a movie because they will not show themselves nude or partly nude.

They are counting on men to react a certain way when an attractive woman appears on screen, and it is all carefully planned out: hair, lighting, clothing, etc.

And violence. I watched as the line between good guy and bad guy disappeared. Take Dirty Harry, a cop who just blew the bad guys away. That series of films were not morality stories but revenge fantasies. And don’t think for a second that the creators did not count on that among their potential viewing audience.

Intention is at the root of everything we do. As a creative person who is also a Christian, I know I will have to give an account for everything. And no, this does not make me obsessive. But it does remind me of a basic truth: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”

And by the way. Sex and the City. Instead of immoral males on the prowl for females, it’s just immoral females on the prowl for males. Sad. Anti-role models.

God bless,
Ed